A lot of news has bubbled up about global warming over the past few days, and devoting a post to each one would be a) carpal tunnel syndrome-inducing, and 2) depressing as hell. So in the manner of ripping off a Band-aid quickly, here is a torrent of global warming info, and as usual it’s about reality and the foes thereof.

1) Consensus

First up: A clarification. I recently posted that 97% of global warming papers that take a stance on its cause say it’s human-induced. This has generated the usual amount of hot air (ha! haha!) from the deniers, including the gem that consensus doesn’t equal reality. “Scientists once thought the Earth was flat!” they cry.

That’s actually not quite true; ancient Greek scientists knew the Earth was round, and even how big it was. And who do you think replaces older, less accurate information with better understanding? Scientists!

Anyway, we on the side of reality know that consensus is not proof of global warming—the scientific evidence of global warming is overwhelming and obvious, as well as very easy to find. The actual point of discussing the consensus is that due to the relentless effort of deniers, the public thinks this is a real controversy. It isn’t. The consensus shows that the vast majority of actual climate scientists agree that global warming is real, and we’re to blame.

Which brings me to this head-desking bit of denial:

2) Lamar Smith’s Embarrassing Editorial

Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex) is head of the House Science Committee, and also a major global warming denier. He wrote an OpEd in the Washington Post recently that is a atrocious bit of nonsense typical of the genre.

Smith’s false claims are ably dismantled at Climate Science Watch, which has links and references. Smith is an interesting case: he’s also trying mightily to politicize the National Science Foundation, but at the same time is a strong advocate for NASA and space exploration, and other fields of science as well. This makes him less of a caricature than, say, Georgia Representative Paul “Evolution is a lie from the pit of Hell” Broun, but serves as a good example that ideological compartmentalization affects all of us, and we all suffer from cognitive biases. We need to be aware of them, and we especially need to be aware of them—and call them out—when our duly elected representatives display them.

Speaking of which…

3) Why Deny?

It’s not clear to me why some people deny the fact of global warming. It may be ideological, or it may be due to funding sources (like huge amounts of cash dumped into denial by fossil fuel companies and the Koch brothers).

Or it may be both. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes has a pretty scathing expose on this, saying we need to follow the money, and also trace the religious belief used to bolster denialism. That last part is no joke; a recent study showed that a chunk of people really believe in Biblical end times, and this colors their attitude about such things as climate change. Remember, in 2009, Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill.) quoted the Bible in Congress—specifically commenting on climate change—saying that only God can declare the time when the Earth ends, and that “man will not destroy this Earth.” And he still sits on the Committee for Energy and Commerce.

4) Big Picture Science

I did an interview with my friend and astronomer Seth Shostak on the SETI radio show Big Picture Science, talking about the awesomely terrible claim that more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is great for plants. That whole show is about global warming, and it’s well worth your time to hear.

5) What Say Ye?

So what do you do when confronted by a denier, who says CO2 is good for us, or that ice is increasing, or that the Sun is the cause of warming?

What you do is refer to this fantastic list of 99 one-liners rebutting denier claims. It’s one-stop shopping for quick retorts to these talking points. It’s lengthy, but good, and has links to more detailed rebuttals and science as well.

I think the reason for denying varies; in here we see examples of people who just think it will be too expensive so they throw any shit to the wall and see if it sticks, then you also see those that feel like a rebel in doing so and they never really respected science in the first place, and then there are those that will just tow the party line till death. But they all have one common denominator: laziness.

There have been few times when I wanted to apply the term "radical atheist" to myself more than the time when I heard the argument that "global warning isn't happening because there's no way that God would let it happen". I think it was from James Inhofe, which wouldn't be surprising, but I may be mistaken.

Wait, didn't that same god flood the planet because he thought people were fucking shit up?

Explain to me your true reason for denying. Be honest, because I'm confused, this site contradicts some of the other junk science that you've tried to post as your reason for not believing in climate change.

Deny all you want, just be honest about why; is it because you think Jesus wouldn't allow it, or is it because you believe in contrary science? You're not being honest with us.

Just don't be one of those trolls that throws shit against the wall and hopes it sticks. We already have one of those.

How about IF it is occuring and IF it is occuring because of the activities of man that it is something that MUST be feared? That seems like opinion to me.

What is the "normal" temp above which is warming? What is the "optimal" temp above or below which has a negative impact on human life?

And even if it's all true and potentially dangerous when can it be mentioned that the political and scientific "remedies" may have a more negative impact on humans (less individual freedom in the form of lower energy use, restrictions on travel, higher taxes -- relinquished national sovereignty -- and less economic wealth to deal with dislocation, famine, medicine, future technologies) than climate change itself?

There is no question about whether it is occurring or not. Actually, let me rephrase: for those who acknowledge the unbiased, apolitical truth, there is no question about whether it's occurring or not.

Quote:

when can it be mentioned that the political and scientific "remedies" may have a more negative impact on humans (lower energy use, less individual freedom or national sovereignty, restrictions on travel, less economic wealth to deal with dislocation, famine, medicine, future technologies) than climate change itself?

How about IF it is occuring and IF it is occuring because of the activities of man that it is something that MUST be feared? That seems like opinion to me.

What is the "normal" temp above which is warming? What is the "optimal" temp above or below which has a negative impact on human life?

And even if it's all true and potentially dangerous when can it be mentioned that the political and scientific "remedies" may have a more negative impact on humans (less individual freedom in the form of lower energy use, restrictions on travel, higher taxes -- relinquished national sovereignty -- and less economic wealth to deal with dislocation, famine, medicine, future technologies) than climate change itself?

Two well known frauds. Harris studied insurance law and Mann was a weather man(one who never even actually got a degree in meteorology). Their chart is so full of holes it's not even worth touching. Please don't pretend to respect "science" only when it's shaped to fit your agenda.

There is no question about whether it is occurring or not. Actually, let me rephrase: for those who acknowledge the unbiased, apolitical truth, there is no question about whether it's occurring or not.

Yeah, screw the rest of the living creatures on this earth.

You miss the point so clearly one could almost suspect you of doing it intentionally.